Ultrasound-guided monopolar versus bipolar radiofrequency ablation for genicular nerves in chronic knee osteoarthritis pain: A randomized controlled study.

Background: This study compared between monopolar and bipolar radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the genicular nerves using ultrasound guidance (USG) in chronic knee osteoarthritis pain. Material and methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Fifty patients with knee osteoarthritis pain were equally randomized to either monopolar or bipolar groups. The primary outcome was visual analogue score (VAS). The secondary outcomes were the proportion of successful responders with a reduction of 50% of VAS score at 12 and 24 weeks, the procedure time and pain and oxford knee score (OKS).VAS and OKS were recorded at 1, 4, 12, 24 weeks after intervention. Any complications were reported. Results: Mean VAS score in bipolar group was (p < 0.05) lower than monopolar group at 12 weeks [4.84 ± 0.62 Vs. 3.56 ± 0.71] and 24 weeks [5.44 ± 0.82 Vs. 3.96 ± 0.79]. The Proportion of successful responders with a reduction of at least 50% of VAS score were more in bipolar group than monopolar group at 12 weeks (80% Vs. 12%) and 24 weeks (44% Vs. 4%). Mean OKS score in bipolar group was (p < 0.05) lower than monopolar group at 12 weeks [26 ± 3 Vs. 34 ± 3] and 24 weeks [27 ± 3 Vs. 35 ± 3].The procedure time and pain were (p < 0.05) lower in monopolar than bipolar group. The complications were similar in both groups. Conclusion: USG bipolar RF ablation is more effective than monopolar RF ablation in controlling knee osteoarthritis pain as for the duration and severity of pain without fluoroscopic confirmation.

Short term survival of critically ill COVID-19 Egyptian patients on assisted ventilation treated by either Dexamethasone or Tocilizumab.

Tocilizumab (TCZ) and Dexamethasone are used for the treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients. We compared the short-term survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with either TCZ or Dexamethasone. 109 critically ill COVID-19 patients randomly assigned to either TCZ therapy (46 patients) or pulse Dexamethasone therapy (63 patients). Age, sex, neutrophil/ lymphocyte ratio, D-dimer, ferritin level, and CT chest pattern were comparable between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed better survival in Dexamethasone group compared with TCZ (P = 0.002), patients didn't need vasopressor at admission (P < 0.0001), patients on non-invasive ventilation compared to patients on mechanical ventilation (P<0.0001 ), and in patients with ground glass pattern in CT chest (P<0.0001 ) compared with those who have consolidation. Cox regression analysis showed that, TCZ therapy (HR = 2.162, 95% CI, 1.144-4.087, P <0.0001) compared with Dexamethasone group, higher neutrophil/Lymphocyte ratio (HR = 2.40, CI, 1.351-4.185, P = 0.003), lower PaO2/FiO2, 2 days after treatment, (HR = 1.147, 95% CI, 1.002-1.624, P < 0.0001) independently predicted higher probability of mortality. Dexamethasone showed better survival in severe COVID-19 compared to TCZ. Considering the risk factors mentioned here is crucial when dealing with severe COVID-19 cases.Clinical trial registration No clinicalTrials.gov: Nal protocol approved by Hospital Authorities, for data collection and for participation in CT04519385 (19/08/2020).

Recovery Profile of Sugammadex versus Neostigmine in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Cardiac Catheterization: A Randomized Double-Blind Study.

Background: Sugammadex is a selective reversal agent which has the ability to reverse deep neuromuscular blockade. However, there are still controversial results as regard sugammadex effects on the quality of recovery. We hypothesized that Sugammadex may have better recovery profile compared to neostigmine in pediatric patients with congenital heart diseases undergoing cardiac catheterization. Patients and Methods: This prospective randomized double-blind study included 50 pediatric patients aged <2 years who were divided into two groups according to the reversal agent used; Group S (Sugammadex) and Group N (Neostigmine). Both groups received the same anesthetic technique during cardiac catheterization, and basic hemodynamic monitoring was ensured in both groups. After the procedure, reversal was done using 4 mg.kg‒1 sugammadex or 0.04 mg. kg‒1 neostigmine plus 0.02 mg. kg‒1 atropine according to the group allocation. Recovery time and side effects were recorded. Results: The two groups showed comparable findings regarding demographics. Nonetheless, the total time of anesthesia had mean values of 91.06 and 101.25 min in the two groups, respectively (P = 0.003), while recovery time had mean values of 1.61 and 9.23 min in the same groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Hemodynamic profile (heart rate and mean arterial pressure) was better after reversal with sugammadex. Blood sugar levels and side effects showed no significant difference between both groups. Conclusion: Sugammadex can be a more rapid and effective alternative to neostigmine for reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac catheterization.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of hysteroscopic-guided pertubal diluted bupivacaine infusion for endometriosis-associated chronic pelvic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of hysteroscopic-guided pertubal diluted bupivacaine infusion for endometriosis-associated chronic pelvic pain (CPP). METHODS: Between June 2010 and July 2013, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was undertaken at Mansoura University Hospital, Mansoura, Egypt. Patients meeting inclusion criteria (laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis, patent fallopian tubes, ≥6 months CPP, pain score on visual analogue scale [VAS] >5) were randomly assigned using a computer-generated randomization sequence to receive either office hysteroscopic-guided pertubal diluted bupivacaine infusion (0.25%) or placebo. Response to treatment was assessed using subjective data for scores on VAS and a monthly verbal rating scale (VRSmonthly) at baseline and at 1, 2, and 3 months of follow-up. Additionally, women completed a questionnaire to evaluate the overall satisfaction at 3 months. RESULTS: Thirty patients were assigned to each group. In the bupivacaine group, VAS and VRSmonthly scores were significantly lower at 1, 2, and 3 months than at baseline (P<0.05 for all). Additionally, scores were significantly lower in the bupivacaine group than in the placebo group at 1, 2, and 3 months (P<0.05 for all). At 3 months, 22 (73%) women in the bupivacaine group expressed satisfaction, compared with 2 (7%) in the placebo group (P=0.18). CONCLUSION: Office pertubal hysteroscopic-guided diluted bupivacaine infusion could be used to manage endometriosis-associated CPP for at least 3 months. AEARCTR-0000573.

Single-dose paravertebral blockade versus epidural blockade for pain relief after open renal surgery: A prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Paravertebral block (PVB) has been an established technique for providing analgesia to the chest and abdomen. We conducted the current study to compare single-dose PVB versus single-dose epidural blockade (EP) for pain relief after renal surgery. METHODS: Eighty patients scheduled for renal surgery were randomly assigned into two groups according to the analgesic technique, PVB group or EP group. General anesthesia was induced for all patients. Postoperative pain was assessed over 24 h using 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Postoperative total pethidine consumption was recorded. Any postoperative events, such as nausea, vomiting, shivering, or respiratory complications, were recorded. Hemodynamics and blood gasometry were also recorded. RESULTS: EP group showed significant decrease of both heart rate and mean blood pressure at most of the operative periods when compared with PVB group. There was no difference in total rescue analgesic consumption. Postoperative VAS showed no significant difference between the studied groups. Postoperative events were comparable in both the groups. CONCLUSION: Single injection PVB resulted in similar analgesia but greater hemodynamic stability than epidural analgesia in patients undergoing renal surgery, therefore this technique may be recommended for patients with coexisting circulatory disease.